So yeah, Grindelwald... Big bad motherfucker that Rowling threw in as an after thought so Dumbledore could look beastly

Like was there anything mentioned about him other than Voldemort killing him and dumbledore saying they were equals if not dumbledore being slightly better?

So what do you think? Was grindelwald wasted in the series? Could more have been done with him?

And their plan, Dumbledore and Grindelwalds decision to enslave humanity under wizards which they worked for two months on the suddenly though they needed the Deathly hallows to accomplish anything. Regardless of that Do you think they could have succeeded? And was there plan for the greater good a good plan? if you get what I mean

 

Meh. He wasn't really relevant to the central plot of the series. Grindelwald escaping and wreaking havoc is much better suited to fanfiction. That said, very few authors have the skill to make him anything less than a mustache-twirling voldemort copycat.

IMO, the best Grindelwalds are heartless and Machiavellian in their efforts to achieve their vision of the future, but never evil-just-because.

 

Seeing the timing when Grindelwald was defeated, he must have had a role in the muggle WW2. So, yeah. Gellert Grindelwald was a total badass who was the third in the most powerful and skilled men in Europe during canon years, although now that I think of it, his imprisonment must have rusted his skills as well.

To secretly influence and run his war behind the WW2 must have required a sharp mind and a devious personality and I don't think Gellert is anything like Voldemort. I don't think he was quite a pure-blood nutter because he befriended Albus Dumbledore, who was a half-blood.

Gellert's character has a lot of potential in Harry Potter. However, the only writer who portrays him in a kick-ass light has a butt-sex fetish-firephoenix8. The story Crimson Vanguard was taken down by the author when someone hacked his ff.net profile.

Still, I'd love to read a well written Gellert Grindelwald.

 

The first mention of Grindelwald in canon was in book one when Harry read Dumbledore's chocolate frog. I would like to have seen more about him, such as the idea of learning from history's mistakes. I think JKR stated somewhere that Grindlewald felt remorse for his past mistakes.

I've written two stories that feature Grindelwald, but I can't say they're good. One had him breaking out on the 50th anniversary of his capture and going on a rampage, and the other has him where he was never capture at all, and blended back into society until the need occurred for him to blow stuff up. Bad stuff.

 

Hey @Anarchy. The one where Gellert blends back into society is the one with that story where Harry becomes super powerful with a custom made Knockturn Alley wand, is it not? I enjoyed that one when I first started reading Harry Potter fanfiction. Now, I can't help but laugh whenever I come across that story.

Harry who becomes powerful just by widening his spell knowledge, not to forget the Nundu animagus form. Now, in which story did you a write a rampaging Gellert?

 

Santi's Grindelwald. Only a handful of scenes, but easily the best I've read.

Damn I miss that story. :|

 

To be honest, I've never really thought too much about Grindelwald. He's always been more of an afterthought to me... I know he's there, but he really didn't matter all that much. Seems like he was just there to make Dumbledore seem like a more accomplished wizard, and then later on to add depth to his unclear back story.

 

Old topic, but 'tevs.

I liked the Grindelwald in Altered Destinies (DobbyElfLord) - it's actually one of my favourite HP FanFics - really well done, and although some of the storylines are a bit 'out there' (demons etc.), it ties in EXTREMELY well with some of the real events in WWII history - lots of research done to work them together.

I'd have liked to have seen how the Grindelwald in SIAPL would have played out, but it died too soon (despite the 150k plus words or whatever) to get a real sense of just how badass he could have been. It's a shame, as Jono's Voldemort in SIAUL is probably one of the best I've come across, especially considering how long ago it was written.

 

If you haven't already, read Concentric Wavelengths by Voice of the Nephilim. I'll not say any more than that for fear of spoiling it for you.

 

The author sounds familiar. And the title. I've been on fanfics for many years, 11-12 years at least, and while I go through phases of taking breaks, or reading 20 fanfics a week (I read fast, and I have a job that requires me to work 30 minutes a day at the most, and I can work from anywhere I want - lots of freedom ), I can barely ever remember a story name/author.

Just took a quick look - I've not read it, because last time someone recommended it, I took one look at the word count and nexted it. I'll read it this time when I get back from the bank.

May sound a strange question, but I don't fancy making a new thread on it - how much of this forum likes to discuss HP stuff? I've been reading/watching the books/films and I do enjoy discussing this stuff. 25 I may be, but I'm not ready to let go of my inner child just yet.. heh heh heh..

I only ask, cos this subforum seems to be the least active of the main ones, I'm just wondering if everyone have kinda all hp'd out so people'd rather not do it. TBF, most things have probably been discussed anyway, it's over 5 years since the last book (what a horrible thought, I remember queueing up that night then finishing it 5 hours later partly super excited, partly devastated that it's over..)

 

I'm sure there are some people who would be willing to have a HP chat. I'm also sure it would rapidly turn into an argument which had to be canon-stomped by Taure

 

Wat? We discuss HP here?

 

I'd love to read a sequel to Concentric Wavelengths. The story has frightening potential.

There mate @Henry, fixed it for ya.

 

dafaq? [ Spoiler ]shit[ /spoiler ], man...

 

There are people who still haven't read VoTN's Concentric Wavelenghts?

Rache(That's me btw) stares at people in shock and is unable to figure out from which planet they came from.

If anyone wants to read a bad-ass Gellert Grindelwald story, avoid Harry Potter and the Greater Good. While the story itself is very good, the author's version of Gellert Grindelwald disappointed me.

 

Honestly, in my view, Grindelwald may well have been more dangerous as an opponent than Voldemort.

I mean Voldemort is obviously pure evil incarnate and so his only followers are going to be those who entriely agree with his views (or those who follow out of fear - the worst kind of followers in many respects).

Grindelwald on the other hand may well have been able to appeal to all those magic-users who were neither light nor dark. It's basic psychology that if people think they are doing something good they are going to be more willing to do it. Hence 'The Greater Good' being a rather scary ideology when it's considered that Voldemort without any such pretense almost demolished a whole nation.


Let's face it if Grindelwald was in the same league as Dumbledore, and could paint it as if wizards were doing the right thing he must have been one hell of a dangerous enemy.


So IMO Grindelwald would be smart, persuasive, powerful and cunning.


The thing you then have to ask is: what would his weaknesses be? Why was Voldemort so much more feared than him?

 

I'd say that Voldemort was more feared because Voldemort is a more of a hands-on type of a man. The image I have of Grindelwald is one of a political figure like Dumbledore, and not a front-line leader and a fighter like Voldemort. Kind of like Dumbledore's evil twin.

A straight on psychopath who goes on a murdering rampage is a lot more scary than someone who does things with a bit more subtlety, even though the subtle guy might be able to do a lot more damage.

 

Voldemort was the pretty recent Dark Lord when Rita Skeeter wrote the article. If she claimed that Voldemort was nothing compared to Grindelwald, she would be fried and fed to the birds.

Recent events have a much more significance and importance. Also, while Grindelwald was a Dark Lord, I don't think he was a sadistic torturer who killed just because he simply could.

 

Dark Lord is a name that Voldemort made for himself.

A dark wizard is what both he and Grindelwald were.

 

So, we're saying that Grindelwald was less psychotic and thus less fear inspiring though not necessarily less dangerous?


I can certainly agree with this, particularly in light of the fact that some interpretation being involved is reasonable (as Rache points out), yet I do have a couple of issues.


The first is that Grindewald must have experiment with some pretty dark magic in order to be expelled from a magical school which wholehartedly supported dark magic. I mean Karkaroff was their Highmaster, a DE who tortutred people etc. (for fun or sociopathy?). So Grindelwald was hugely talented, on the same level as Dumbledore and hugely dark (though not as outrightly evil as Voldemort) so I can't see him completely taking the back line. This is especially relevant when we consider that Dumbledore tended to take the back line due to a desire to avoid war, which Grindelwald clearly didn't share.


Further, all the evil acts done by Grindelwald's forces would still be attributed to him by all those who suffered (We largely attribute much, if not all, of the evil of the Nazi period in Germany to Hitler - deservably but the analogy is obvious). So, Grindelwald whether he took a front-line approach or not would be still be hugely hated and feared. He also caused a general war across Europe so it could be argued he caused more pain overall.


So, why, even after the world believed Voldemort dead did he still get referred to as the most terrible Dark Lord of all time? I accept Rache's point, but the fact that Skeeter didn't actually need to draw comparisons means I have to once again pose the same question. After all, if Grindelwald was as dangerous as he seems on paper then why draw comparisons? It's clear Voldemort is deadly without calling him the most powerful dark wizard in x years. So, if Voldemort was in fact more dangerous I have to ask again, why?


The only viable response comes if we attribute it to the level of personal involvement - i.e. Grindelwald is responsible for more suffering indirectly but Voldemort is directly responsible for more total suffering.


Yet, even then, I can't see this holding up, (the person who orders a hundred dead is more reviled by society as a whole than the man who kills a single person wouldn't we say?).